Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Minerva Surgical, Inc., Petitioner v. Hologic, Inc., et al.
Case Number:
20-440
Court:
Nature of Suit:
830 Patent Infringement (Fed. Question)
Firms
- Arnold & Porter
- Kramer Levin
- Leason Ellis
- Panitch Schwarze
- Sidley Austin
- Williams & Connolly
- Williams Mullen
- WilmerHale
Companies
- American Intellectual Property Law Association
- Hologic Inc.
- Intellectual Property Owners Association
- Minerva Surgical Inc.
- New York City Bar Association
- Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America
- United Therapeutics Corp.
Sectors & Industries:
-
November 22, 2024
High Court Bar's Future: Sullivan & Cromwell's Morgan Ratner
Morgan L. Ratner has emerged as a leader of the U.S. Supreme Court bar's next generation, and she attributes her ascent to brilliant mentors, a laid-back argument style, an aversion to overconfidence and a firm commitment to clear principles in every case — even if that means reluctantly telling the chief justice, as she once did, that a hypothetical cat stuck in a tree shouldn't be saved.
-
December 13, 2021
The Biggest Patent Rulings Of 2021
The U.S. Supreme Court preserved America Invents Act reviews by creating a new review process, and narrowed application of a rule that could allow more inventors to challenge their own patents. Here's a look back at the biggest patent cases of the year.
-
June 29, 2021
High Court Limit On Patent Challenges To Spur More Fights
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision narrowing, but not eliminating, a doctrine that prevents inventors from challenging their own patents opens numerous questions about exactly when such attacks are permitted under the court's revised standard, attorneys say.
-
June 29, 2021
Justices Narrow Bar On Patent Attacks By Inventors
The U.S. Supreme Court refused Tuesday to completely eliminate a doctrine that bars inventors from challenging their own patents, but imposed new restrictions on when it can be invoked, holding that the Federal Circuit has applied the rule too broadly.
-
April 21, 2021
Justices Eye Narrowing Bar On Patent Attacks, Not Ending It
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court cast a skeptical eye Wednesday on calls to abolish a doctrine that bars inventors from challenging their own patents, and appeared to be searching instead for ways to limit the application of the rule to make it fairer.
-
April 16, 2021
Up Next At High Court: Green Cards For TPS Holders
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider green card eligibility for immigrants with temporary protected status, a dispute over appellate cost rules, and the counterintuitive issue of inventors challenging their own patents in the first week of its April argument term.
-
April 16, 2021
What To Watch As Justices Eye Restriction On Patent Attacks
When the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday in a case challenging a doctrine that restricts invalidity attacks on some patents, observers will be looking for clues on whether the justices appear inclined to endorse the rule, limit its application or discard it completely.
-
April 08, 2021
Minerva Calls Assignor Estoppel 'Ill-Conceived Atextual' Error
Minerva Surgical Inc. has told the U.S. Supreme Court that the doctrine of assignor estoppel, which bars those who sell or assign patents to others from challenging their validity, is an "an ill-conceived atextual doctrine developed by lower courts" that needs to be abandoned.
-
April 01, 2021
Big Pharma Tells Justices To Keep Assignor Estoppel
The drug industry's top lobbying group has warned the U.S. Supreme Court that if it grants a surgical device company's bid to abolish the doctrine of assignor estoppel, which bars those who sell or assign patents to others from challenging their validity, it would be unfair to drug companies that buy patents with the intent of enforcing them.
-
March 25, 2021
Hologic Tells Justices Assignor Estoppel Is Settled Law
Hologic Inc. told the U.S. Supreme Court this week not to abolish the doctrine of assignor estoppel, which bars those who sell or assign patents to others from challenging their validity, saying that doing so would be "ripping away layer upon layer of settled law."